I just watched The Staircase. It is a documentary about a murder case and follows the lawyers from start to finish. It is pretty good and shows a lot about what a criminal lawyer goes through when defending a client. It also has a lot of courtroom footage. I watched it on google video. Just google "The Staircase documentary" to find it. It has 8 parts. If you don't remember seeing the case on the news a few years ago, try watching the video without googling the case to see the verdict. It's much better that way, lol

lnoy wrote:I just watched The Staircase. It is a documentary about a murder case and follows the lawyers from start to finish. It is pretty good and shows a lot about what a criminal lawyer goes through when defending a client. It also has a lot of courtroom footage. I watched it on google video. Just google "The Staircase documentary" to find it. It has 8 parts. If you don't remember seeing the case on the news a few years ago, try watching the video without googling the case to see the verdict. It's much better that way, lol

lnoy wrote:I just watched The Staircase. It is a documentary about a murder case and follows the lawyers from start to finish. It is pretty good and shows a lot about what a criminal lawyer goes through when defending a client. It also has a lot of courtroom footage. I watched it on google video. Just google "The Staircase documentary" to find it. It has 8 parts. If you don't remember seeing the case on the news a few years ago, try watching the video without googling the case to see the verdict. It's much better that way, lol

Thanks for bringing this up. I watched it on your recommendation and found it to be interesting to see the whole "process". I took your advice and avoiding searching the case prior to, or during viewing and was certainly shocked by the outcome!

Yeah, that's a pretty amazing documentary; thanks for the tip. I also refrained from researching the movie beforehand, and was similarly surprised by the outcome (although the film was naturally a little biased toward one side). One thing I thought would have been emphasized by one side or the other was where the money came from - husband or wife (it wasn't clear whether or not his books were successful). Either side could have leveraged that to its advantage. Also, no one ever mentioned the fact that he had gone to Duke undergrad - you'd think the defense would have used that point to craft his character as being intelligent, having plenty going for him, etc.

JG7773 wrote:Thanks for bringing this up. I watched it on your recommendation and found it to be interesting to see the whole "process". I took your advice and avoiding searching the case prior to, or during viewing and was certainly shocked by the outcome!

dooood wrote:Yeah, that's a pretty amazing documentary; thanks for the tip. I also refrained from researching the movie beforehand, and was similarly surprised by the outcome (although the film was naturally a little biased toward one side). One thing I thought would have been emphasized by one side or the other was where the money came from - husband or wife (it wasn't clear whether or not his books were successful). Either side could have leveraged that to its advantage. Also, no one ever mentioned the fact that he had gone to Duke undergrad - you'd think the defense would have used that point to craft his character as being intelligent, having plenty going for him, etc.

No problem, I thought there could have been more brought up also. But I'm sure there was a lot left out that we did not get to see pertaining to the trial. I also though it was odd that they did not talk about who made the most money becasue the prosecutor could have used that as motive but I'm sure he did ok with his book.

***Spoiler Alert****

In the end I thought the defense brought up enough reasonable doubt to get a not guilty verdict. I would have liked to hear what the jury was discussing. I know they talked about a lot of blood, but the defense went over the blood splatter.

dooood wrote:Yeah, that's a pretty amazing documentary; thanks for the tip. I also refrained from researching the movie beforehand, and was similarly surprised by the outcome (although the film was naturally a little biased toward one side). One thing I thought would have been emphasized by one side or the other was where the money came from - husband or wife (it wasn't clear whether or not his books were successful). Either side could have leveraged that to its advantage. Also, no one ever mentioned the fact that he had gone to Duke undergrad - you'd think the defense would have used that point to craft his character as being intelligent, having plenty going for him, etc.

No problem, I thought there could have been more brought up also. But I'm sure there was a lot left out that we did not get to see pertaining to the trial. I also though it was odd that they did not talk about who made the most money becasue the prosecutor could have used that as motive but I'm sure he did ok with his book.

***Spoiler Alert****

In the end I thought the defense brought up enough reasonable doubt to get a not guilty verdict. I would have liked to hear what the jury was discussing. I know they talked about a lot of blood, but the defense went over the blood splatter.

Not sure if you have looked as of late, but the blood splatter is actually going to get him a new trial, some ten years later. About 3 months ago, they decided that the detective that was the "expert" of the prosecution overstated how much experience he had in the field at the time and that his testimony likely created a prejudice against Peterson.

dooood wrote:Yeah, that's a pretty amazing documentary; thanks for the tip. I also refrained from researching the movie beforehand, and was similarly surprised by the outcome (although the film was naturally a little biased toward one side). One thing I thought would have been emphasized by one side or the other was where the money came from - husband or wife (it wasn't clear whether or not his books were successful). Either side could have leveraged that to its advantage. Also, no one ever mentioned the fact that he had gone to Duke undergrad - you'd think the defense would have used that point to craft his character as being intelligent, having plenty going for him, etc.

No problem, I thought there could have been more brought up also. But I'm sure there was a lot left out that we did not get to see pertaining to the trial. I also though it was odd that they did not talk about who made the most money becasue the prosecutor could have used that as motive but I'm sure he did ok with his book.

***Spoiler Alert****

In the end I thought the defense brought up enough reasonable doubt to get a not guilty verdict. I would have liked to hear what the jury was discussing. I know they talked about a lot of blood, but the defense went over the blood splatter.

Not sure if you have looked as of late, but the blood splatter is actually going to get him a new trial, some ten years later. About 3 months ago, they decided that the detective that was the "expert" of the prosecution overstated how much experience he had in the field at the time and that his testimony likely created a prejudice against Peterson.

Yea, looked him up not long ago. I think he is actually out right now awaiting trial.